On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 05:45:06PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Package: developers-reference > Severity: wishlist > > Hi, > > I wonder whether the developer's reference should offer recommendations > for the naming of packages along the lines of: > - for source packages do not blindly take the name of the upstream > tarball but consider something related to the binary package's naming > scheme > (rationale: namespace for source packages seems to be fairly > polluted. In particular having binary and source packages of the > same name seems undesirable) > - for libary packages, the package name should match with the soname > (as checked by lintian) unless there is a compelling (non-aesthetic) > reason not to. > (rationale: the lintian warning seems to be a good way to > indicate when something unexpectedly happened to the soname if the > package started out using a name lintian does not warn about)
What a coincident. My old bug report to policy Bug#253511 was closed today and I realized it should have been to developers-reference thus reassigned. Then I found this one. Basically the same issue. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
